Posted on 08/11/2014 8:07:16 AM PDT by Phillyred
Almost every day, it seems, brings a headline demonstrating how right 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was, and how wrong President Barack Obama was, on the critical issues facing America.
In 2012, Romney warned that Obama’s failure to secure an agreement to keep a residual military force in Iraq would threaten the U.S. gains made at such a high cost in American lives and treasure. “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence,” Romney asserted.
The chaos in Iraq today supports Romney’s view. With no U.S. military presence to constrain Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite politician persecuted Sunni leaders and gutted Sunni participation in government and the military. Worse, it set the stage for Sunni sympathies to turn to the fanatical Islamic State in Syria and Iraq that has conquered a significant part of the country and waged genocide against religious minorities. Obama has had to order U.S. air strikes to protect U.S. personnel in the Kurdish region and to support Kurdish militia to keep ISIS from capturing all of northern Iraq.
In the 2012 debates, Obama mocked Romney for calling Russia America’s top geopolitical foe. Today, Russia has stolen Crimea from Ukraine, funds and provides weapons and men to Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine and even threatens an invasion of the country. President Vladimir Putin meddles in the Mideast, seeks to expand Moscow’s clout in Latin America, and harbors renegade Edward Snowden.
On domestic issues, Romney in 2011 advanced the idea of giving veterans a voucher to obtain medical care they could not get at a Veterans Administration hospital. This year saw the VA scandal reveal that long waiting lists for hospital treatment were hidden. Legislation Obama signed this week allows vets to seek help outside the VA system.
Romney understood that the nation’s outdated, complex tax code encourages U.S. corporations to park assets overseas and invest in other countries. He recommended tax reform to keep that money and business in America and boost the economy. Obama does nothing about reform but demagogues as “unpatriotic” corporations pressured by the tax code to seek profits and better returns for shareholders overseas.
As governor in Massachusetts, Romney demonstrated an ability to work across party lines, and, as a business executive called upon to save the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from scandal and financial ruin, he proved to be a problem solver.
Obama has never demonstrated a commitment to bipartisan leadership. In the opening days of his presidency in 2009 with the nation in financial crisis, Obama rejected GOP ideas for economic stimulus by telling Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, that “I won.” Obama’s re-election meant only further gridlock in Washington.
All this hasn’t been lost on the public. Polls last month showed Romney would handily win a rematch and that he would be a 2016 front-runner in New Hampshire, which hosts the first presidential primary. Even some GOP donors warmed to the idea of a 2016 Romney bid.
Romney ruled it out. Probably with good reason. Another run would require his confronting the ghosts of 2012 — his “self-deportation” immigration rhetoric, his writing off of the “47 percent,” and his failure to defend his own business record.
While Romney might have been the president the country needs today, it’s not so clear he’s the candidate of tomorrow.
LOLOLOLOL! Talk about someone not knowing Romney! The very same Romney who forced gay marriage on Massachusetts by fiat/decree is a very strong Constitutionalists [sic]?!!! The same prevaricating SOB who would rather lie than tell the truth even if the truth served him better. Or are you one of the bots who swore up and down that Romney's fierce desire to protect a woman's right to murder her baby was the same as Reagan falling for the democrats' health of the mother deception.
Tell me if you can, is Romney pro-life or pro-choice, is he pro-family/pro-military or pro-gay, is he pro-sovereignty or pro-illegal, pro-gun control or pro-NRA? I ask because depending on which group he's addressing or which election Romney's in the middle of losing, he has claimed to be all of those things.
He's a liar and has no problem skirting which ever constitution he's bound to uphold in order to help liberals. You certainly don't know him very well yourself.
I will tell you one thing, I would not be surprised at all if there was internet group, behind the scenes co-ordination going on to boost Romney's image. I am sure they have been trolling this site trying to see what the objection to his candidacy is in order to develop a strategy to help him win the nomination again. They come up with these ridiculous claims that are easily refuted by people who have watched Romney for years. But I wonder, how are they going to handle one of their biggest problems?
Why did Romney sit on his hands the 2012 election. If he couldn't bother to run then, why give him the opportunity to go out and lose again?
So you think the government should become more like a business; that if they would just get it, and realize that we need to establish a euro style welfare system and just be more efficient and pay a less percentage than the silly euros do, if we can just get a good manager in there.
Well, that’s your point of view. Ok.
The problem with all these different models of government is that the constitution is ignored.
The constitution is what the president swears an oath to and it is the only and main point of his job.
If people want to make the government into an accepted big business model, they’ll be frustrated until they get a new constitution in which calls for a big business model which calls for the president to be a manager.
But that’s just not the case.
Finny, I think I told you about the spiritual repercussions I experienced as a result of voting for Romney in 2012.
I did a good amount of praying about whether I should do it; it seemed pretty clear to me I was being told to leave Romney alone. Then Benghazi happened. I got scared and I voted for Mitt anyway. And the very next day, those spiritual repercussions began.
There’s no way on earth I’ll vote for another liberal. Nothing is worth jeopardizing my relationship with God, and it doesn’t matter how angry that might make some folks. Throw it all at me-—I’ll take it, I don’t care.
:)
Our foreign policy is so F’ed up, not even John Bolton can fix it.....even if he was given the chance to.
” He was recorded saying it at a fundraising dinner with his big $$$$ GOPe donors, a waiter put the recorder on a table.
He didn’t intend to tell us that, that was a message to his rich buddies.
Romney knew it was a loser (wrt to the election). Common sense would tell anyone it was.
It was a classic GOPe moment, same GOPe who wants amnesty. “Those lazy Americans refuse to work, that’s why we need immigration reform, immigrants are willing to work” “
Nailed it, SOL!
Finny,
Let’s see if anything is left for our guys to “fix”.
Centurion, suffice it to say that for me and for Catherine and for tens of thousands of other moral Americans, our fear of God was stronger than our fear of Obama.
I already have enough to answer for on Judgment Day without also having voted FOR leading little ones astray (Romney and the Gay Youth Pride movement, as well as forcing adoption agencies to work with gay "parents," or are you ignorant of that REALITY in voting for Romney??? Did you know that was what you were voting FOR? Because that IS what you were voting FOR, whether you meant to or not)
Centurion, being a pretty big sinner in my wild and wonton youth, I already have enough to answer for when I stand before my Maker, without also having to answer for working to give power TO a monster who thinks minor girls have a "right" to an abortion with the government's help even when their parents refuse consent. That, centurion, is what you voted FOR when you voted for Romney.
Centurion, maybe you think God is okay with voting FOR that kind of evil, and perhaps He is -- but I kinda think God is more to be feared than a skinny fraud named Barack Obama.
You vote, act, and react based on "what if." I vote, act, and think ahead based on what IS.
My best guess is the country splinters into pieces within the next 2-3 decades.
That is the likely result of Obummer.
Just goes to prove that being right doesn’t mean a whole lot if you don’t have what it takes to win.
If he was unable to fire all the open Marxists outright, he would at least get them demoted to places where they could do little harm.
Three TOTAL losers.
Three people that toed the GOPe line...and LOST...because of it.
I don't give a rat's behind for anyone of them..
Of course not. Even with the huge taxes, the welfare state is still bankrupting the Europeans. In fact, Sweden and Germany have been cutting back on benefits for current recipients--something US politicians would not dare to do.
The problem with all these different models of government is that the constitution is ignored. The constitution is what the president swears an oath to and it is the only and main point of his job.
For the Democrats and some Reps, the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to justify their objectives. Promoting the general welfare is used to support programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, etc. And in many cases SCOTUS decisions ordain them as being constitutional.
If people want to make the government into an accepted big business model, they’ll be frustrated until they get a new constitution in which calls for a big business model which calls for the president to be a manager.
The people want this huge government enterprise managed properly. Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, are rife with huge amounts of fraud and mismanagement. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being wasted annually. The waste is enormous and we are paying for it in not only taxes, but also, huge deficit spending that is plunging us ever deeper into bankruptcy. These are threats to our economic well-being, standard of living, national security, etc. Unless we can get our financial house in order, everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
No
You can’t manage this big governmental system efficiently
Supreme Court decisions or not. It is not designed to maintain 47% on welfare, food stamps etc. if tge Supreme Court wants to rule that way fine then the people need to respond to that in a constitutional way
Welfare is constitutional? Ok for the sake of argument, are welfare recipients constitutionally allowed to vote? If no one has taken that question to task it’s up to the people to do so. Mitt Romney certainly would not do so. His focus was ostensibly to manage our economics.
The problem with our economy is nothing more than corruption A guy who is a good manager is not the antidote to that. A guy with a working knowledge of the constitution is the answer.
The Supreme Court never ruled that the government is no longer run by we the people so the people need to respond. You think its by hiring a good manager.
I don’t
The people run the government. If it doesn’t run well it’s because the people are not managing it well
That and see all the left wing nut bags kick, scream and turn blue
It sure as hell can be managed better than it is now. One reason it is so big is because it is not managed efficiently. Duplicate programs, fraud, lack of automation, inability to audit, etc. must be addressed whether it is big or small government. The same principles apply.
Supreme Court decisions or not. It is not designed to maintain 47% on welfare, food stamps etc. if tge Supreme Court wants to rule that way fine then the people need to respond to that in a constitutional way?
Agreed. The people get the government they deserve. If they remain dumb and uninformed and easy to manipulate they can only blame themselves, not their political representatives whom they elected.
Welfare is constitutional? Ok for the sake of argument, are welfare recipients constitutionally allowed to vote? If no one has taken that question to task it’s up to the people to do so. Mitt Romney certainly would not do so. His focus was ostensibly to manage our economics.
How many people want SS or Medicare or Medicaid or food stamps eliminated? We even have defenders here on FR who believe that SS and Medicare are not entitlements since they paid for them. The fact is that people are getting far more out of these systems than they contributed. It is a Ponzi scheme for the baby boomers and the current population over 65.
The problem with our economy is nothing more than corruption A guy who is a good manager is not the antidote to that. A guy with a working knowledge of the constitution is the answer.
The problem with our economy is over regulation and a surplus of workers. We are bringing in too many immigrants who take jobs and depress wages. They are also changing the country demographically and are natural Democrat constituents.
The Supreme Court never ruled that the government is no longer run by we the people so the people need to respond. You think its by hiring a good manager. I don’t
You keep creating these phony strawmen. The government needs to be managed better at all levels. Pension funds are going bust. Cities are declaring for bankruptcy. We need a President who is a good manager, but it isn't the only prerequisite. The President must be a leader who picks the right people to assist him in achieving definable objectives. He must be articulate so he can explain his policies to the people. We are in very bad shape. Some very painful decisions and actions must be taken. The people must understand how bad it is and why we must take these actions. It is a matter of political courage.
The people run the government. If it doesn’t run well it’s because the people are not managing it well
No, the problem is that they are not putting people in office who can manage things well. The people don't manage the government, they choose those who do manage it. Ultimately, the people deserve the blame and the consequences.
The government needs to be managed?
Why?
If the framers thought so, then fine. Where is the job description of the president in the Constitution. And dows it state that he has to manage a government that takes above 40% of people’s income to support itself and all the programs it has invented to keep itself in business.
Where does it state in the constitution that he has to have massive managerial skills?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.